> On Feb 9, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>> Hello Steve, >>> >>> How about creating three functions - one that drains the receive queue, >>> one that drains the send queue and a third function that drains both ? >>> The latter function then can call the two former functions. And since >>> only one of these three functions will have a user in your patch series >>> (the function that drains the RQ), how about only introducing only that >>> function now and to wait with introducing the two other functions until >>> these have a user ? >> >> That sounds reasonable. Simpler too perhaps. We'll see if anyone else >> has an opinion. > > Another option is for ib_drain_qp() to just skip queues with IB_POLL_DIRECT CQ processing. Does ib_drain_qp() recognize when one CQ is new-style, and one is old school? How about QPs with a single CQ? Since there is a requirement that each CQ is allocated via ib_alloc_cq, it would be good to assert that is true in ib_drain_qp() before you prepare and post the blank WRs. Or if you prefer not to handle it automatically, you could add a flag parameter to ib_drain_qp (IB_DRAIN_RQ, IB_DRAIN_SQ, or IB_DRAIN_BOTH). -- Chuck Lever -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
